Memory management is tricky though. Hard to tell which values sum up to
the
real thing.
Probably best meter on Linux is the actual free value highlighted
below?
Check it before starting amavisd/spamd/whatnot and check it again after
running for a while. Also double check it after killing
On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 14:18:12 +0100
Matus UHLAR - fantomas uh...@fantomas.sk wrote:
I'm not talking about the semantics but about the implementation.
Simply said, vfork() was developed to avoid process memory copying
used at fork(). on linux, fork() does NOT copy process memory.
On 07.03.13
On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 08:57:28 +0100
Giampaolo Tomassoni giampa...@tomassoni.biz wrote:
I don't see too many differences with running more SA
processes with linuxes (in which a fork() is actually a vfork()).
On 07.03.13 07:01, David F. Skoll wrote:
I don't believe that's true. Do you have
On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 13:47:55 +0100
Matus UHLAR - fantomas uh...@fantomas.sk wrote:
the implementation of fork() in linux makes it nearly the same as
vfork().
That is completely wrong. Just because modern forks use copy-on-write
doesn't make them anything at all like vfork; the semantics are
On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 13:47:55 +0100
Matus UHLAR - fantomas uh...@fantomas.sk wrote:
the implementation of fork() in linux makes it nearly the same as
vfork().
On 07.03.13 07:53, David F. Skoll wrote:
That is completely wrong. Just because modern forks use copy-on-write
doesn't make them
On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 13:47:55 +0100
Matus UHLAR - fantomas uh...@fantomas.sk wrote:
the implementation of fork() in linux makes it nearly the same as
vfork().
That is completely wrong. Just because modern forks use copy-on-write
doesn't make them anything at all like vfork; the
On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 14:18:12 +0100
Matus UHLAR - fantomas uh...@fantomas.sk wrote:
I'm not talking about the semantics but about the implementation.
Simply said, vfork() was developed to avoid process memory copying
used at fork(). on linux, fork() does NOT copy process memory.
vfork() also
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 09:48:19AM -0500, David F. Skoll wrote:
I think if you measure what happens to Perl processes that fork a number
of children to handle requests, you'll see that there's very little memory
sharing after a short while.
Please let's stop the techno-theorizing and provide
On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 17:47:22 +0200
Henrik K h...@hege.li wrote:
Memory measured with free (without buffers/cache etc):
begin 2588084
end 1296756
About 25MB non-shared memory used per child,
Are you sure your measurements are correct? I use MIMEDefang which also
has a preforked-children
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 11:37:33AM -0500, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 17:47:22 +0200
Henrik K h...@hege.li wrote:
Memory measured with free (without buffers/cache etc):
begin 2588084
end 1296756
About 25MB non-shared memory used per child,
Are you sure your
On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 18:56:45 +0200
Henrik K h...@hege.li wrote:
You provide no data how you end up with the 4MB etc. And MD is not
SA, it might do all sorts of funky stuff.
I wrote MD, so I'm pretty sure it's not doing any funky stuff.
How about actually trying the provided spamd line
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 11:37:33AM -0500, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 17:47:22 +0200
Henrik K h...@hege.li wrote:
Memory measured with free (without buffers/cache etc):
begin 2588084
end 1296756
About 25MB non-shared memory used per child,
Are you sure your
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 07:02:00PM +0100, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
I just got a snip into my amavisd's 5 children /proc/pid/smaps file,
summing together the count of Private_{Clean|Dirty} pages.
I got this:
p1: 74,164 kb
p2: 70,772 kb
p3: 71,548 kb
p4: 74,064
The Private_ entries in /proc/.../smaps are reported to be the right choice
here: they report only pages allocated while not shared with any other process.
Ie, the ones touched after fork and the new allocated ones.
Also, smaps is a relatively new proc entry, meant exactly to cope with all the
14 matches
Mail list logo
